Stop trying to tie people’s statements into a narrative.
Everyone tells a story, Lodos. What story you’re telling is something I’m allowed to explore, despite your wishes that I don’t. That First Amendment’s a bitch, huh.
it reduces the ability to further replicate
Does it reduce that ability in significant enough numbers to make it worth injecting into people who may suffer severe side effects—possibly even fatal ones—from the drug even before they know if they have COVID? Because the best way to stop the disease from spreading is to prevent it from infecting people in the first place, and since hydroxychloroquine is being used as a post-infection treatment rather than a pre-infection preventative, the drug doesn’t seem like one of the more effective ways to actually stop COVID-19 from spreading.
I was wrong on that.
Holy shit, he can admit it. He can actually fucking admit it.
That puts you one step above the average conservative, Lodos. It’s a small step, but it’s still something.
Useful tool in the fight.
That you continue to believe this despite all evidence to the contrary is why you’re telling a story you don’t think you’re telling but everyone else knows you’re telling.
Property is definite.
And people are what, temporary meat popsicles?
Your mis-association could be quickly and easily recognised by stating it was mis-association.
There is no misassociation. You’ve continually placed property rights above human rights in a way that makes me think you get off sexually to the idea of exercising property rights. If anything, you’re the one associating yourself with that idea by way of your continued fetishizing of property rights above all else, you fuckin’ libertarian.
You have again mi[s]associated me with conservatives based solely on my few aligning ideals
Well, when the jackboot fits…
my belief in personal liberty in masking and closing of businesses
Yes yes, you think someone should have the absolute freedom to make other people sick without regard to public health or basic human decency because PrOpErTy RiGhTs or some shit, we get it already. Find someone who likes the idea of being a disease vector and tell them about it; no one here is going to give you that conversation.
I am capable of separating the f[ar]mer who grabbed his musket and side arm to fire at Unions soldiers burning his crops, from the Confederate government and [its] goals, including slavery.
Admittedly, fighting for the protection of one’s home is a noble cause. That said: Not every Southern farmer who fought in the Civil War did so for that purpose. You’re coming off as someone trying to rewrite history by implying that a good chunk of the people fighting against the United States were simple farmers protecting their crops.
I separate the Union soldier who was called to duty not by choice by by conscription, who burned Southern property on order under penalty of field marshal and death, from the Union command that orders such scorched earth policy.
You shouldn’t. Every soldier had a choice to make. They made their choices regardless of the pressure. Any one soldier could’ve chosen punishment over the acts they committed. Separating the troops from the decisions of their command is to deny those troops the responsibility for their actions—to treat them as little more than robotic drones. You know that’s not true, and you shouldn’t ever make another argument that makes you sound like you don’t know that’s not true.
Ignoring the other factors leaves them repeatable.
Go tell that to your conservative friends, who are trying to all but outright ban the teaching of racial history in this country by attacking critical race theory. In their world, we could teach the fact that the 13th Amendment exists, but we wouldn’t be allowed to say why it exists and what it says because that might hurt white people’s feelings. Hell, in their world, we’d probably be teaching kids that the Confederacy was right—and given how you appear to be defending the Confederacy, that approach might be something you’d be okay with.
Ineffective enough to make it not worth the trouble of trying to turn it into a catch-all COVID-19 treatment like Dear Leader tried to do, though.
The study’s aren’t long enough with the Covid-19 version but with tested SARS Variants previous, it weakens the virus’s spreadability.
Was it you or some other trolling schmuck who was talking about how COVID-19 wasn’t SARS and the response to COVID-19 being based partially on the response to SARS was a bad idea?
The biggest side effect, as I mentioned, is varying heart issues. Which normally don’t cause serious concern for patients with a healthy heart.
Even people with a healthy heart can still suffer fatal heart issues. Life and biology are funny that way. Well, not “ha ha” funny so much as “huh, that was unexpected” funny, and not so much “funny” as “tragic”, but…uh…hmm. Well, I trust you get my point, anyway.
it’s well documented that the vaccination also has this same issue, it’s at a much lower degree than HCL
Which means there is far less risk associated with a vaccine designed specifically to stop COVID-19 than there is with a drug that isn’t generally effective against COVID-19. Imagine that~.
even if the effects aren’t immediate to the recipient they weaken the vir[us’s] ability to replicate
Given the time that could elapse between someone catching COVID-19 and someone showing symptoms of that infection, that person could easily be a infection vector well before knowing they would need any sort of treatment. What good is a drug you say could weaken the virus’s ability to replicate if people don’t know they need it until after the virus has replicated and spread in far larger numbers than even you could anticipate?
here’s nearly a decade of research on these clq drugs. Enough supplemental evidence that the FDA did allow usage.
Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.
So maybe instead of relying only on information that helps your argument and fellates your biases, try looking up the information that makes you uncomfortable and punches your arguments in the face.
The misuse by doctors not verifying pre-existent heart problems, and wide over usage, and quickly rescued supply, had the authorisation pulled (revised, not reversed).
Oh, sure, it was the doctors that were the problem, not the drugs itself. Do you listen to yourself say these things in your head as you type them, or do you just say inane bullshit without thinking twice and hope it sticks?
I didn’t say miracle cure. I said helpful tool for the fight.
Every argument you’ve made in favor of hydroxychloroquine paints the drug as an über-useful tool in stopping COVID-19 altogether, when the drug has proven to be anything but. You almost sound like an evangelist huckster selling snake oil every time you talk about the drug, claiming it does this and that while ignoring the fact that hydroxychloroquine was proven to be an ineffective treatment of, and ineffective preventative measure against, COVID-19 infection.
Between that, your twisted desire to prioritize property and property rights over people and their civil rights, and your refusal to admit that you’re a conservative despite supporting them and mirroring many of their bullshit arguments, you’re coming off as a bigger troll than people who post on 4chan all day. At least /b/ regulars have the testicular fortitude to admit they’re assholes. Where are your balls, Lostcause?
Given this ruling and the reasoning provided therein, what makes you think this law has even the slightest chance of surviving any further challenges to its constitutionality?
When YouTube removes a video from a doctor and says that they removed the doctor for posting medical misinformation that is libel.
No, that is moderation. To prove that it’s defamatory would require a lawsuit, which wouldn’t be successful in this case because calling what he said “misinformation” is the expression of an opinion.
Section 230 should not immunize YouTube or any other big tech from defaming others.
It doesn’t. But a court would still need to rule that YouTube’s speech is defamatory and the chances of that happening are about as good as the chances of a decade’s worth of global climate change being reversed in the next 24 hours.
The general (Southern) population didn’t sign up and fight for any institution or regulation. They fought over being ‘invaded’ their land.
That means they signed up and fought for the Confederate States of America, a nation-state that seceded from the United States for the purpose of ensuring the survival of the institution of slavery. If a Southerner fought for the Confederacy, they were fighting for everything the Confederacy stood for—and above all else, that failed nation-state stood for enshrining slavery into law.
They fought to remain free.
…to own people as property, yes. Jeez, you’d think you wouldn’t forget that, seeing as how you’re a sociopathic libertarian who thinks property and property rights are more important than people and their civil rights.
But the many many thousands who gave their lives on the Southern side did so not for slaves but to be left alone.
…to own slaves, yes.
Look, you can do all the secession-justifying rhetorical backflips you want, but speaking as someone who has been a Southern man since the day I came into this world: The Confederacy was a failed nation-state that seceded from and lost a war with the United States over the right to keep enslaving Black people as if they were property to be bought and sold like one would buy and sell a car these days. Whether the soldiers were specifically fighting for the institution of slavery is irrelevant—they were fighting for the Confederacy, and in doing so, they were fighting for everything the Confederacy stood for. And the Confederacy stood for slavery.
Are you going to bitch about critical race theory and whine about how I’m painting a racist nation-state as racist like all your fellow conservative “lost cause” comrades, or are you going to acknowledge the fucking truth?
later studies found the same in the current C19 virus, at a lower degree
“Lower degree” means “worse performance” in this context. As in, “hydroxychloroquine does worse at preventing the spread of the COVID-19 virus than it does at preventing the spread of the SARS virus”.
The premise here: reduced replication ≈ reduced spread.
By the time hydroxychloroquine was even considered for use in COVID patients, it couldn’t have done much to reduce the spread since—by your own admission, no less!—it only would’ve been effective on a small minority of the population.
there was a targeted population that could have greatly benefitted from use
And if the side effects happened to kill them…well, better that than COVID, huh?
The number of those with effective treatment was a minority
And that was reason enough to start using hydroxychloroquine on a wider segment of the population? That was reason enough to hoard doses of the drug that people with non-COVID conditions they needed the drug to treat would’ve needed?
Hydroxychloroquine’s use as a COVID-19 treatment is, at the absolute best, limited in both effectiveness and who it can work on. To act like it could’ve single-handedly stopped COVID-19 in any meaningful way when absolutely no scientific study to date has ever supported that premise makes a fool out of the person acting that way.
And so you know, Lostcause: “Fool” is the kindest word I could’ve used in that sentence.
And how broad or narrow a group of people can benefit from hydroxychloroquine’s alleged effects in treating COVID? If the group is significantly narrow, the benefits of the drug may be outweighed by the fact that the drug isn’t effective in preventing the further spread of COVID. And that assumes the benefits look the same across the board instead of varying from person to person depending on a variety of factors (including which strain of COVID they’re infected with and what preëxisting conditions they may have).
More importantly it would have worked as a good stop-gap to reduce the spread.
You say hydroxychloroquine could work “as a full antiviral for small minority”. Then you say it could’ve been “a good stop-gap to reduce the spread”. If it could’ve worked only for a small number of people—your words, not mine—how could that have stopped the wider spread of a virus that has infected millions and killed hundreds of thousands?
Right-wing social media has too much of an anti-liberal bias. Surely there must be some law we can enact to take care of this issue. An equality declaration of some sort, a doctrine dedicated to allowing the fair and equitable expression of opposing ideas, could handle that.
…or we could all come to our fucking senses and laugh at Trump for being such a basic bitch that he can’t handle even the mildest criticism of his bullshit.
how does a wealthy individual use more resources themselves compared to less wealthy people?
Let’s take Wealthy Person A; we’ll call them Adam for short. Adam is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and owns several properties around the country as well as a thriving business with multinational deals. (What the business is doesn’t matter.)
Now let’s take Poor Person B; we’ll call them Benny for short. Benny has maybe a few thousand dollars in the bank at best on any given day; he works a full-time job for fifteen dollars an hour, rents an apartment he can barely afford, and drives a ten-year-old used car that gets the job done but isn’t exactly in great shape.
On an average day, Benny showers in the morning, takes his car to work (with maybe a stop at a gas station for a tank refill), works his eight hours, drives home (with maybe a stop at a fast food place for dinner), and does something recreational for a few hours (e.g., plays video games) before going to bed. Notwithstanding any unusual trips/expenses (e.g., a visit to the hospital), that is the average way Benny uses public resources: a drive to and from work on public roads and generally low usage of public utilities such as power and water.
Adam, on the other hand, makes extensive use of public roads and the United States Postal Service to have his business’s goods delivered to other businesses and individual customers. The buildings in which his business operates all have their own utility bills to pay, and they all use more power in an hour than Benny does in an average day. The homes Adam owns also have utility bills to pay, and while they may not use as much power/water if Adam isn’t actually in any of them, the bills still get paid.
Adam could easily afford to pay far more in taxes and still keep both his company and his luxurious lifestyle. Those taxes might go toward fixing the potholes in the roads Benny drives on every day—potholes that might one day cause damage to his car or cause a wreck that puts him in the hospital. For what reason should the government tax Adam less than it would Benny, if it even taxes Adam at all? And don’t say “it’ll punish success”; that bullshit argument doesn’t fly in a world where the most successful man in the world can generate billions of dollars in wealth by exploiting people working forty-hour weeks just for the right to survive another day.
Would you being right bring back the over 600,000 people who’ve died because of COVID—or prevent millions more from infection by all existing variants of the virus? Would it allow you to travel back in time and make Donald Trump a competent and compassionate leader instead of a narcissistic elderly game show host whose entire administration was about him trying to become a king and him living out his “I’m the most powerful man in the world” fantasies? Would that knowledge change literally anything about how the U.S. government responded to COVID during the initial outbreak or how it is currently responding to COVID during the rise of the regional variants?
You’re so insistent on being right because it’ll give you an “I told you so” to shove down the throats of people who hate—and boy, do I mean hate—Old 45 and his asskissers. (FYI: You’re an asskisser.) But beyond that hollow victory, which would sit upon a pile of bodies that is over 600,000 large and still growing in size, your being right would ultimately be meaningless.
And yet, like those who believe it is a fact, you’re pushing it so hard that you come off as one of those people. The fact that you’re also shittalking anyone who dares question the idea that the theory might be bullshit doesn’t help your case, either.
The following are quotes from Donald Trump himself; they come from his speech on the 6th of January, just before the insurrection:
Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with: We will stop the steal.
We will not let them silence your voices. We're not going to let it happen, I'm not going to let it happen.
We're gathered together in the heart of our nation's capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: To save our democracy.
You're stronger, you're smarter, you've got more going than anybody. And they try and demean everybody having to do with us. And you're the real people, you're the people that built this nation. You're not the people that tore down our nation.
Republicans are, Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It's like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we're going to have to fight much harder.
[Y]ou'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we've been forced to believe.
You will have an illegitimate president. That's what you'll have. And we can't let that happen.
The radical left knows exactly what they're doing. They're ruthless and it's time that somebody did something about it.
The Republicans have to get tougher. You're not going to have a Republican Party if you don't get tougher. They want to play so straight. They want to play so, sir, yes, the United States. The Constitution doesn't allow me to send them back to the States. Well, I say, yes it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can't vote on fraud. And fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules.
We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again.
The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
Now, I’m sure you’re going to mention all the times he brought up marching peacefully and whatnot. Don’t bother; I’ve skimmed enough of the transcript to know those parts exist. Instead, I want you to read each of those quotes, and notice some of the verbs/verbal phrases he uses: “stop”, “save”, “fight”, “take back”, “get tougher”, “show strength”, “protect”. Then look at the overall gist of those quotes: “we’re fighting to stop the steal”, “we have to get tougher on the fraudsters”, “we’re here to save democracy”, “we need to do something about this”.
He isn’t explicitly calling for violence, no. But between his planting the idea that his “patriots” must stop the steal by showing strength and doing “something” about the Democrats/“weak Republicans” to save the country, his talking for months about how the election would be fraudulent only if he lost, and his continual(ly rebuked) efforts to overturn an election he lost both electorally and popularly, those quotes — his words — become a form of his mob boss–esque stochastic terrorism. He didn’t need to directly call for violence; all he needed to do is make his wishes known and let his followers do the rest.
Take a bunch of people who have already been manipulated by right-wing media and Donald Trump into believing the election would be/was stolen. Tell them that the literal last line of defense against the stolen election is a Vice President who has already sworn himself to the duty of his office (i.e., to confirm Joe Biden as the President-elect). Gin them up further by referring to them as true patriots, telling them to toughen up and show strength, and implying that they alone can save American democracy itself. What do you get as a result of all that?
Even I’ve said the lab leak theory is a probable one. But until someone produces evidence to confirm that theory, treating it as a certified word-of-God fact is a bullshit thing to do. Unless you have that evidence and are sitting on it for some godforsaken reason, you might want to remind yourself that the theory is still a theory and not a proven fact, then act accordingly.
There is a vast difference between a tenant/landlord relationship and a bar owner kicking some drunken jackass out of their bar for talking shit about [local sports team]. Social media bans are more like the second situation than the first.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Everyone tells a story, Lodos. What story you’re telling is something I’m allowed to explore, despite your wishes that I don’t. That First Amendment’s a bitch, huh.
Does it reduce that ability in significant enough numbers to make it worth injecting into people who may suffer severe side effects—possibly even fatal ones—from the drug even before they know if they have COVID? Because the best way to stop the disease from spreading is to prevent it from infecting people in the first place, and since hydroxychloroquine is being used as a post-infection treatment rather than a pre-infection preventative, the drug doesn’t seem like one of the more effective ways to actually stop COVID-19 from spreading.
Holy shit, he can admit it. He can actually fucking admit it.
That puts you one step above the average conservative, Lodos. It’s a small step, but it’s still something.
That you continue to believe this despite all evidence to the contrary is why you’re telling a story you don’t think you’re telling but everyone else knows you’re telling.
And people are what, temporary meat popsicles?
There is no misassociation. You’ve continually placed property rights above human rights in a way that makes me think you get off sexually to the idea of exercising property rights. If anything, you’re the one associating yourself with that idea by way of your continued fetishizing of property rights above all else, you fuckin’ libertarian.
Well, when the jackboot fits…
Yes yes, you think someone should have the absolute freedom to make other people sick without regard to public health or basic human decency because PrOpErTy RiGhTs or some shit, we get it already. Find someone who likes the idea of being a disease vector and tell them about it; no one here is going to give you that conversation.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Admittedly, fighting for the protection of one’s home is a noble cause. That said: Not every Southern farmer who fought in the Civil War did so for that purpose. You’re coming off as someone trying to rewrite history by implying that a good chunk of the people fighting against the United States were simple farmers protecting their crops.
You shouldn’t. Every soldier had a choice to make. They made their choices regardless of the pressure. Any one soldier could’ve chosen punishment over the acts they committed. Separating the troops from the decisions of their command is to deny those troops the responsibility for their actions—to treat them as little more than robotic drones. You know that’s not true, and you shouldn’t ever make another argument that makes you sound like you don’t know that’s not true.
Go tell that to your conservative friends, who are trying to all but outright ban the teaching of racial history in this country by attacking critical race theory. In their world, we could teach the fact that the 13th Amendment exists, but we wouldn’t be allowed to say why it exists and what it says because that might hurt white people’s feelings. Hell, in their world, we’d probably be teaching kids that the Confederacy was right—and given how you appear to be defending the Confederacy, that approach might be something you’d be okay with.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Ineffective enough to make it not worth the trouble of trying to turn it into a catch-all COVID-19 treatment like Dear Leader tried to do, though.
Was it you or some other trolling schmuck who was talking about how COVID-19 wasn’t SARS and the response to COVID-19 being based partially on the response to SARS was a bad idea?
Even people with a healthy heart can still suffer fatal heart issues. Life and biology are funny that way. Well, not “ha ha” funny so much as “huh, that was unexpected” funny, and not so much “funny” as “tragic”, but…uh…hmm. Well, I trust you get my point, anyway.
Which means there is far less risk associated with a vaccine designed specifically to stop COVID-19 than there is with a drug that isn’t generally effective against COVID-19. Imagine that~.
Given the time that could elapse between someone catching COVID-19 and someone showing symptoms of that infection, that person could easily be a infection vector well before knowing they would need any sort of treatment. What good is a drug you say could weaken the virus’s ability to replicate if people don’t know they need it until after the virus has replicated and spread in far larger numbers than even you could anticipate?
The FDA revoked the emergency use authorization for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine three months after it was issued:
So maybe instead of relying only on information that helps your argument and fellates your biases, try looking up the information that makes you uncomfortable and punches your arguments in the face.
Oh, sure, it was the doctors that were the problem, not the drugs itself. Do you listen to yourself say these things in your head as you type them, or do you just say inane bullshit without thinking twice and hope it sticks?
Every argument you’ve made in favor of hydroxychloroquine paints the drug as an über-useful tool in stopping COVID-19 altogether, when the drug has proven to be anything but. You almost sound like an evangelist huckster selling snake oil every time you talk about the drug, claiming it does this and that while ignoring the fact that hydroxychloroquine was proven to be an ineffective treatment of, and ineffective preventative measure against, COVID-19 infection.
Between that, your twisted desire to prioritize property and property rights over people and their civil rights, and your refusal to admit that you’re a conservative despite supporting them and mirroring many of their bullshit arguments, you’re coming off as a bigger troll than people who post on 4chan all day. At least /b/ regulars have the testicular fortitude to admit they’re assholes. Where are your balls, Lostcause?
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Given this ruling and the reasoning provided therein, what makes you think this law has even the slightest chance of surviving any further challenges to its constitutionality?
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
No, that is moderation. To prove that it’s defamatory would require a lawsuit, which wouldn’t be successful in this case because calling what he said “misinformation” is the expression of an opinion.
It doesn’t. But a court would still need to rule that YouTube’s speech is defamatory and the chances of that happening are about as good as the chances of a decade’s worth of global climate change being reversed in the next 24 hours.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
That means they signed up and fought for the Confederate States of America, a nation-state that seceded from the United States for the purpose of ensuring the survival of the institution of slavery. If a Southerner fought for the Confederacy, they were fighting for everything the Confederacy stood for—and above all else, that failed nation-state stood for enshrining slavery into law.
…to own people as property, yes. Jeez, you’d think you wouldn’t forget that, seeing as how you’re a sociopathic libertarian who thinks property and property rights are more important than people and their civil rights.
…to own slaves, yes.
Look, you can do all the secession-justifying rhetorical backflips you want, but speaking as someone who has been a Southern man since the day I came into this world: The Confederacy was a failed nation-state that seceded from and lost a war with the United States over the right to keep enslaving Black people as if they were property to be bought and sold like one would buy and sell a car these days. Whether the soldiers were specifically fighting for the institution of slavery is irrelevant—they were fighting for the Confederacy, and in doing so, they were fighting for everything the Confederacy stood for. And the Confederacy stood for slavery.
Are you going to bitch about critical race theory and whine about how I’m painting a racist nation-state as racist like all your fellow conservative “lost cause” comrades, or are you going to acknowledge the fucking truth?
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
“Lower degree” means “worse performance” in this context. As in, “hydroxychloroquine does worse at preventing the spread of the COVID-19 virus than it does at preventing the spread of the SARS virus”.
By the time hydroxychloroquine was even considered for use in COVID patients, it couldn’t have done much to reduce the spread since—by your own admission, no less!—it only would’ve been effective on a small minority of the population.
And if the side effects happened to kill them…well, better that than COVID, huh?
And that was reason enough to start using hydroxychloroquine on a wider segment of the population? That was reason enough to hoard doses of the drug that people with non-COVID conditions they needed the drug to treat would’ve needed?
Hydroxychloroquine’s use as a COVID-19 treatment is, at the absolute best, limited in both effectiveness and who it can work on. To act like it could’ve single-handedly stopped COVID-19 in any meaningful way when absolutely no scientific study to date has ever supported that premise makes a fool out of the person acting that way.
And so you know, Lostcause: “Fool” is the kindest word I could’ve used in that sentence.
On the post: Trump Allegedly Demanded Parler Kick Off His Critics If It Wanted Him On The Platform
You should’ve stopped right there…
…before you exposed an asshole.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
And how broad or narrow a group of people can benefit from hydroxychloroquine’s alleged effects in treating COVID? If the group is significantly narrow, the benefits of the drug may be outweighed by the fact that the drug isn’t effective in preventing the further spread of COVID. And that assumes the benefits look the same across the board instead of varying from person to person depending on a variety of factors (including which strain of COVID they’re infected with and what preëxisting conditions they may have).
You say hydroxychloroquine could work “as a full antiviral for small minority”. Then you say it could’ve been “a good stop-gap to reduce the spread”. If it could’ve worked only for a small number of people—your words, not mine—how could that have stopped the wider spread of a virus that has infected millions and killed hundreds of thousands?
On the post: Judge Don Willett Calls Out Appeals Court For Saying Setting A Suicidal Man On Fire Didn't Violate His Rights
This is a good idea.
That’s why it’ll never happen.
On the post: Trump Allegedly Demanded Parler Kick Off His Critics If It Wanted Him On The Platform
You’d believe Trump if he said he sucked off Bigfoot, wouldn’t you?
On the post: Trump Allegedly Demanded Parler Kick Off His Critics If It Wanted Him On The Platform
Right-wing social media has too much of an anti-liberal bias. Surely there must be some law we can enact to take care of this issue. An equality declaration of some sort, a doctrine dedicated to allowing the fair and equitable expression of opposing ideas, could handle that.
…or we could all come to our fucking senses and laugh at Trump for being such a basic bitch that he can’t handle even the mildest criticism of his bullshit.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Let’s take Wealthy Person A; we’ll call them Adam for short. Adam is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and owns several properties around the country as well as a thriving business with multinational deals. (What the business is doesn’t matter.)
Now let’s take Poor Person B; we’ll call them Benny for short. Benny has maybe a few thousand dollars in the bank at best on any given day; he works a full-time job for fifteen dollars an hour, rents an apartment he can barely afford, and drives a ten-year-old used car that gets the job done but isn’t exactly in great shape.
On an average day, Benny showers in the morning, takes his car to work (with maybe a stop at a gas station for a tank refill), works his eight hours, drives home (with maybe a stop at a fast food place for dinner), and does something recreational for a few hours (e.g., plays video games) before going to bed. Notwithstanding any unusual trips/expenses (e.g., a visit to the hospital), that is the average way Benny uses public resources: a drive to and from work on public roads and generally low usage of public utilities such as power and water.
Adam, on the other hand, makes extensive use of public roads and the United States Postal Service to have his business’s goods delivered to other businesses and individual customers. The buildings in which his business operates all have their own utility bills to pay, and they all use more power in an hour than Benny does in an average day. The homes Adam owns also have utility bills to pay, and while they may not use as much power/water if Adam isn’t actually in any of them, the bills still get paid.
Adam could easily afford to pay far more in taxes and still keep both his company and his luxurious lifestyle. Those taxes might go toward fixing the potholes in the roads Benny drives on every day—potholes that might one day cause damage to his car or cause a wreck that puts him in the hospital. For what reason should the government tax Adam less than it would Benny, if it even taxes Adam at all? And don’t say “it’ll punish success”; that bullshit argument doesn’t fly in a world where the most successful man in the world can generate billions of dollars in wealth by exploiting people working forty-hour weeks just for the right to survive another day.
On the post: As Expected: Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Law
“Dig up, stupid!”
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Would you being right bring back the over 600,000 people who’ve died because of COVID—or prevent millions more from infection by all existing variants of the virus? Would it allow you to travel back in time and make Donald Trump a competent and compassionate leader instead of a narcissistic elderly game show host whose entire administration was about him trying to become a king and him living out his “I’m the most powerful man in the world” fantasies? Would that knowledge change literally anything about how the U.S. government responded to COVID during the initial outbreak or how it is currently responding to COVID during the rise of the regional variants?
You’re so insistent on being right because it’ll give you an “I told you so” to shove down the throats of people who hate—and boy, do I mean hate—Old 45 and his asskissers. (FYI: You’re an asskisser.) But beyond that hollow victory, which would sit upon a pile of bodies that is over 600,000 large and still growing in size, your being right would ultimately be meaningless.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
And yet, like those who believe it is a fact, you’re pushing it so hard that you come off as one of those people. The fact that you’re also shittalking anyone who dares question the idea that the theory might be bullshit doesn’t help your case, either.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
I’m posting this again to prove a point.
The following are quotes from Donald Trump himself; they come from his speech on the 6th of January, just before the insurrection:
Now, I’m sure you’re going to mention all the times he brought up marching peacefully and whatnot. Don’t bother; I’ve skimmed enough of the transcript to know those parts exist. Instead, I want you to read each of those quotes, and notice some of the verbs/verbal phrases he uses: “stop”, “save”, “fight”, “take back”, “get tougher”, “show strength”, “protect”. Then look at the overall gist of those quotes: “we’re fighting to stop the steal”, “we have to get tougher on the fraudsters”, “we’re here to save democracy”, “we need to do something about this”.
He isn’t explicitly calling for violence, no. But between his planting the idea that his “patriots” must stop the steal by showing strength and doing “something” about the Democrats/“weak Republicans” to save the country, his talking for months about how the election would be fraudulent only if he lost, and his continual(ly rebuked) efforts to overturn an election he lost both electorally and popularly, those quotes — his words — become a form of his mob boss–esque stochastic terrorism. He didn’t need to directly call for violence; all he needed to do is make his wishes known and let his followers do the rest.
Take a bunch of people who have already been manipulated by right-wing media and Donald Trump into believing the election would be/was stolen. Tell them that the literal last line of defense against the stolen election is a Vice President who has already sworn himself to the duty of his office (i.e., to confirm Joe Biden as the President-elect). Gin them up further by referring to them as true patriots, telling them to toughen up and show strength, and implying that they alone can save American democracy itself. What do you get as a result of all that?
You get an insurrection.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Even I’ve said the lab leak theory is a probable one. But until someone produces evidence to confirm that theory, treating it as a certified word-of-God fact is a bullshit thing to do. Unless you have that evidence and are sitting on it for some godforsaken reason, you might want to remind yourself that the theory is still a theory and not a proven fact, then act accordingly.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Pot, kettle, black.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
There is a vast difference between a tenant/landlord relationship and a bar owner kicking some drunken jackass out of their bar for talking shit about [local sports team]. Social media bans are more like the second situation than the first.
Next >>